Warwick Hughes writes:
Thanks to The National Business Review in New Zealand we have this rare article on Steve McIntyre while he was visiting downunder.
Full article here, but the web version doesn’t have the same headline: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/too-much-hot-air-about-global-warming-says-researcher-rv-1
h/t to reader Bob Koss
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice to see Steve getting press coverage which concentrates on what he actually says, not on personal or political squabbles. I note it says that a fuller text will be published in the print edition next week. Can anyone from NZ tell us if it will also be available online?
On Feb 8, 2013 7:31 AM, “Watts Up With That?” wrote: > > Anthony Watts posted: “Warwick Hughes writes: Thanks to The National Business Review in New Zealand we have this rare article on Steve McIntyre while he was visiting downunder. Full article here, but the web version doesn’t have the same headline: http://www.nbr.co.” >
“Engineering quality report…”
“Arm waving…”
Yup, that’s our boy.
Nice to see the comments by the Kiwis blowing away the one alarmist troll. Keep it up friends!
Quite the intriguing exchange following the article. One zealot takes on the world! Oh well, what can one expect these days when dealing with the church of Climate change? Nice to see people that don’t belong to the church getting a little publicity and respect – even if the zealot doesn’t think it appropriate. Should mankind – other than the wealthy elite – survive the oncoming energy crisis at a time when energy will be essential, they will look back at these times and wonder who was putting what in the water supply to create such paranoia and ignorance.
What research has Steve McIntyre done? Which UN report is the article talking about?
The article is not so bad. I guess the headline writer is an idjit.
Refreshing and fairly written.
nice to read the comments there:-)
many really Have woken up.
Hope his daughter is making a speedy recovery!
Poor old Crowd Pleaser, he /she/it is starting to sound a little bit desperate. Almost feel sorry for him/her/it, almost but not quite 🙂
I am always amused by the alarmist opinion that all “deniers” are in the pay of fossil fuel, yet their sainted protagonists, who have to justify yet more money for their projects from the tax-payer, have no similar conflicts. Just who is in denial, here?
No “denialist” I have conversed (interacted? – most are on t’internet) with do NOT deny that the world is warming; they do NOT deny that CO2 is increasing; they do NOT deny that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas – most will happily concede that it is one of many. What they have reservations about is the categorical link between man-made CO2 and global warming. Should there be incontrovertible scientific evidence of this, then they will accept it; as yet, despite that simple request, all they tend to get is insults and vitriol from the likes of “Crowd pleaser” (a misnomer if ever I heard one!), who deny that there can be any further discussion.
@DirkH: “The article is not so bad. I guess the headline writer is an idjit.”
The word “demon” is in quotation marks, although there is no use of the word in the linked article to describe Steve Mc. The newspaper article above if you can read the small print says that someone once described him as the “Great Satan of Climate Science,” so perhaps “demon” is a paraphrase of that. Or maybe the full article, when it comes out, will actually quote someone as using the word to describe Steve.
sceptical says:February 8, 2013 at 5:09 am
What research has Steve McIntyre done? Which UN report is the article talking about?
If you don’t know, how can you be skeptical?
Check this out, http://climateaudit.org/
There is several years of reading to catch up on.
‘. Should there be incontrovertible scientific evidence of this, then they will accept it”
two problems.
1. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence for scientific theories. As Feynman was fond of saying Science deals with the “more likely” and the “less likely”
2. The fact that all evidence can be questioned entails that they can always refuse to accept it and evidence shows that they are more likely to refuse than accept anything that climate science says.
witness the ice loss this past year. When the accepted indices of ice area showed a record what did sceptics do? They pointed to IMS. When IMS broke the record what did they do?
They attacked all satillite data and asked for calibrattions and arm waved about accuracy.
When those didnt work, they then tried to blame the loss on an arctic storm, a claim that has since been overturned. No science argument is ever as clear as 2+2=4. That is why a dedicated motivated skeptic can always refuse to accept what science actually offers: the most likely explanation
I hope the real reason for Steve’s trip to NZ goes as well as the article.
Maybe Steve himself will feel differently, but I think that’s a pretty good headline.
‘Yet to be proved wrong’ next to a picture without horns, a forked tail and an evil Monty Burns leer is about as positive as you could hope for.
And the quotes round ‘demon’ show that it is not the view of the paper itself.
If it were about me, I’d be pretty pleased with it.
Steven Mosher says:
February 8, 2013 at 7:56 am
‘. Should there be incontrovertible scientific evidence of this, then they will accept it”
two problems.
1. There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence for scientific theories. As Feynman was fond of saying Science deals with the “more likely” and the “less likely”
2. The fact that all evidence can be questioned entails that they can always refuse to accept it and evidence shows that they are more likely to refuse than accept anything that climate science says.
witness the ice loss this past year. When the accepted indices of ice area showed a record what did sceptics do? They pointed to IMS. When IMS broke the record what did they do?
They attacked all satillite data and asked for calibrattions and arm waved about accuracy.
When those didnt work, they then tried to blame the loss on an arctic storm, a claim that has since been overturned. No science argument is ever as clear as 2+2=4. That is why a dedicated motivated skeptic can always refuse to accept what science actually offers: the most likely explanation
————————————————————–
Meh. I agree that maybe the phraseology was unfortunate there, but I think you’re running with it a bit too far.
I know of at least some skeptics like myself in this regard. I’d be satisfied if anyone could point to a theoretical relationship that I could actually follow in the data. For example, if it was as simple as: ‘CO2 has changed by X, and go look – wow – temperature has changed by the predicted Y’ Or ‘There’s a wiggle here in atmospheric CO2, see – there’s the corresponding temp wiggle’. I know it’s not that simple, fine. Could anyone point me to the math and physics I’m missing in order to follow the mysterious relationship, and lay out what the relationship is?
What I’m getting at (probably poorly) is that I don’t need ‘incontrovertible’ evidence, I just need a theory that describes what happens in the real world reliably and accurately. I’d still argue about policy decisions and the politics of it, but that’s a separate issue.
“Demon” isn’t always a negative:
de·mon
[dee-muhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an evil spirit; devil or fiend.
2.
an evil passion or influence.
3.
a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.
4.
a person with great energy, drive, etc.: He’s a demon for work.
5.
a person, especially a child, who is very mischievous: His younger son is a real little demon.
# 4 could well be Steve
– – – – – – – –
I recommend being more specific.
The onus is on all climate science researchers and assessors to implement professional and open quality assurance standards and controls like those widely used in modern business / industry. The onus is to use such exacting QA standards and controls starting with all primary original untouched data, in method development and revisions, in computer code control and going through to public archiving of review comments.
Just to name a just a few of the numerous places where sub-professional climate science QA has been observed by the critical blogosphere are: UVA, UEA CRU, Met, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC.
If an independent top line professional audit team from general industry and business were to perform the kind of QA audit that is required in critical businesses and industries on those organizations then I am sure there would be shocked dismay.
John
@steven mosher
I fear you are falling into the same trap as do many catastrophists and alarmists. You are implicitly assuming that ‘scepticism’ is the reverse image of alarmism. That it can logicaly defined as ‘~alarm’. You say above ‘sceptics did this’ and ‘sceptics did that’.
Well maybe some people who are sceptics did those things. And many sceptics didn’t do anything like that at all. Scepticism comes in a lot of different varieties…not just the chiral opposite of alarmism. So whereas nearly all alarmists and catastrophists are concerned about substantially the same things, sceptics cover a wide variety of views.
In general I am pretty sceptical about most things climatic, but I am totally indifferent to the fate of Arctic Ice. I have never been convinced that it is something worth worrying about nor can I get myself worked up into a frenzy one way or another. And its floating so does nothing for sealevels whether it melts or not.
So please be more carfeul with your generalisations about ‘sceptics’.
sceptical says:
February 8, 2013 at 5:09 am
What research has Steve McIntyre done? Which UN report is the article talking about?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Head over to Steve McIntyre’s website and see for yourself linky
Background (Layman’s version):
Caspar and the Jesus paper
The Yamal implosion
The Yamal deception
A very useful tool is Ric Werme’s Guide to Watts Up With That
Here are a list of posts on Steve McIntyre from WUWT
(Steve is the guy who found the statistical/computer code game playing in Micheal Mann’s Hockey Stick that was so prominently displayed by the IPCC.)
@Steven Mosher 7:56
Thats a broad brush you are swinging, does the same logic apply to all lukewarmers?
So what caused the Arctic ice to recede in the 1920s and 1880s?
Shame about the viking circa 1300.
Carbon dioxide done it … right?
Is it possible your obsession with people who “deny” evidence is projection?
No great malice here, I used to be able to follow and enjoy your postings, of late you seem distracted, illogical and prone to engage by hit and run.
I really really need to get on this big oil money bandwagon…it seems to be an accepted truth that any “denier” is well funded by them, so where do I sign up?
I think Sceptical is merely pointing out that the article is very poorly written. The reader who knows little of the subject is left with the two questions he asked, implying that the reporter has done a shoddy job or the editor has hacked out crucial info.